I agree with most of what was said in the actual critiques given. Both shots of the town need composition help and are also underexposed. When shooting snow, typically you need to overexpose a bit because your meter wants to turn the snow into a gray instead of a bright white. This also underexposes everything else in the scene as a result.
As for the zoo shot, it isn't working due to the window in the frame but also do to it simply being an uninteresting scene. You could have possibly waited for something good and went in tighter as others have stated.
As for the zoo debate, it only matters if you are incapable of removing the zoo aspect. If I take a close up of a hawks head at a zoo, with significantly OOF background, you would not know the difference unless I told you. However, if I left evidence of a cage in the background, or a handlers glove underneath the hawk, then I failed. This is why its very rare to be able to get a good shot from a tight enclosure. ( also why its better to go in tight on the animal in this case ) Are wild animal shots more interesting? Depends on your opinion and the shot, but I would say that this is typically true. An owl snatching up a small rodent in an open space is much more interesting than a picture of one sitting in a cage. You are most likely not going to get a shot of a sprinting cheetah in a zoo, unless it is some larger free roaming type of zoo. However, to take a fairly static photo of an animal is very possible. Also, perhaps people WANT photos of zoo animals. There is a use for those types of shots in magazines, newspapers, brochures, advertisements etc. So it all depends on what you are looking to get out of the shot.